Caesar CXXXVII

Saw a Babylonian, Assyrian (his name was Sanhaneser I think) and an... Amaleqian but Roman, hum...no Wow, Babylonians, Assyrians? Much older ghosts - interesting but not surprising since you live in the holy land. Never heard of Amaleqians though. Damn, I knew it !!! So maybe I saw an Amalekite ? Maybe

Saw a Babylonian, Assyrian (his name was Sanhaneser I think) and an... Amaleqian but Roman, hum...no

I see . Thanks . I wonder about other tranlslation and what Polybius used in his original text

Happy birthday chief and Lechaim !

"When he objected to this and finally refused, the Romans also at once saw that he clearly condemned himself and had no confidence in his case; but as they wished by any and every means to put an end to the war, they went on insisting until he consented to send by sea to Pergamus plenipotentiaries empowered to make peace on the terms dictated by the legates." (Polybius, 24.14) . Reffering to the year 180 BCE . Can anyone tell what the name (although not Roman) stands for ? Thanks

The explanation of T. Corey Brennan (The praetorship in the Roman Republic‏(‏ is the best I have found (yet) . For him the two parts of the Lex Baebia are connected . He says (as Richardson) that the law was passed in 181 . How the two parts were connected ? less ex-praetors (de praetoribus' part) would lessen the competition for the consulship and thus bribery (de ambitus' part) .

Please direct me to the reviews, if it's no bother . What is wrong with Tarns ?

Crete ? A nation ? Edit : deleted

Because it was superceded by this list... http://www.unrv.com/government/legal-insti...-chronology.php Note the correct date on this law and the notation on the possible law in 192. Thanks for pointing it out though Aha ! I say About the ambitu - Livius said "Acting on the authority of the senate, the consuls brought before the people a measure dealing with bribery. " (40.19) . That is all . There is another source ? Details ? Scholars opinion ?

Thanks for the info. doco. I was and now I am Vas ist das ?? Even albert the brain would (If he was with us today) find it impossible to understand . Rating a team even before the season opens ? I wonder, are they trying to change it ?

Saw new two movies about college football, can't understand how you Americans deside your collage football champions ! Please use simple explanation... Thanks

Went to the list of Roman laws here in searching for the Lex Baebia 1. The "de praetoribus" was passed in 181 and not c. 192 . Among many others - "The law cannot have been passed long before (179, when the law was activated for the first time) and the most likely magistrate to have proposed it is M. Baebius Tamphilus, the consul of 181." (Hispaniae: Spain and the Development of Roman Imperialism, 218-82 BC‏, J. S. Richardson, p. 110-111)‏ 2. There was another Lex Baebia - the evasive Lex Cornelia Baebia de ambitu - Passed on the same year with regard to....ambitu (should be on the list) . Btw - Why not chronological list instead of AB ?

Thanks Pompey, I got the idea . Could you recommend a book about the Seleucid rule in the east ?

Please elaborate about the relationship between Antiochus III and the Iranian aristocracy . Did the later understood the effects of the battle ? How much support they gave to the king before the battle and how it changed ? Thanks

You'll care when our government decides to send troops into Darfur next, and our tax dollars start pouring into another backward country that hates our guts. -- Nephele Sadly, neither your government or mine will ever send troops into this area because it is not profitable. And that is exactly why we should care. These countries hate our guts because our military intervention so obviously follows our own interests, and is not at all geared to combating injustice, like our propaganda states. And this is just as transparent to people in these countries as was the crass propaganda of the Eastern Block a generation ago to us. Our intervention in Iraq replaced one tyranny with another (as the locals see it). Our intervention in Darfur or Rwanda would have given ( or will give ) the world a sign that our intentions are benign and in the interests of benefiting innocent people. Maybe, if that happens, people will start hating our guts a little bit less. What were U.S.A interests in Sumalia and Bosnia ? There is no oil there

It is because of Quinti the rooster, he did not crow the other day so some people thought that the assassination took place on the 14th . Edit : Before raeding the below it is important to understand that the assassination took place on the Ides of Mars pure and simple . But this Ides of March (March 15th) is for the Iulian calendar and not the modern one . When synchronization is made between the two we get the 14th . It is no big deal, the Roman calendar of the year 190 BCE was 4 months ahead of the modern one so March 15th 190 was actually November 191 . Here is the explanation from Chris Bennett - "The exact Julian date at which the pre-Julian calendar was replaced by the Julian calendar is determined by fixing the triennial cycle that was incorrectly used in the years before the Augustan reform of A.U.C. 746 = 8. This problem is often glossed over quickly as being trivial and obvious. However, the period has much more chronological interest and difficulty than is usually assumed, and determining the correct solution turns out to be of fundamental importance to solving Roman chronology in the years of the pre-Julian calendar. While the Julian calendar itself began operation on Kal. Ian. A.U.C. 709 = 45, leap years were initially inserted every third year instead of every fourth, until the error was corrected by Augustus. The most detailed description of this reform is given by the fifth century author Macrobius Saturnalia 1.14.13. He states that after Caesar's death the pontiffs caused the leap day to be inserted "at the beginning of every fourth year instead of at its end" (i.e., since the Romans counted inclusively, every third year instead of every fourth), for 36 years, after which time there had been 12 leap days in a period that should have had 9. At that point, Augustus suspended intercalation for 12 years to compensate for the three extra leap days, and then resumed intercalation on the correct frequency. A similar account is given by Solinus I 40-47, and certain details are given by earlier authors; notably, Pliny, NH 18.211, states that intercalation was suspended for 12 years. The reality of the three-year cycle is proven by iPriene 105, a decree issued by the proconsul of Asia, Paullus Fabius Maximus, that explicitly synchronises the calendar of the Asian province with this cycle in a leap year. Even knowing the date of the Augustan reform, and being assured that it did not affect the month lengths, there are several ambiguities in Macrobius' account. The first is to determine exactly which years were incorrectly implemented as leap years. Since the period 45-8 covers 38 years, counting inclusively in the Roman fashion, there are three possible phases for 12 intervals of 3 years. The second is to determine whether there were 12 or 13 intercalations before the reform. While there were 12 triennial intervals in the period 45-8, each interval had a start and an end point, meaning that there were 13 possible points at which leap days could have been inserted. The first of these would be the same on both triennial and quadrennial cycles, meaning that any initial leap day need not be regarded as an error requiring compensation. The third is to determine when the 12 years were counted from and the manner in which intercalation was resumed. Scaliger argued that the 12 years were counted from the year of the Augustan reform. 12 years from 8, counting inclusively, covers the period 8 B.C. - 4 A.D., implying a resumption of intercalation in A.D. 5. Since A.D. 5 is not a Julian leap year, intercalation must then have been resumed by resuming the accumulation of quarter days in that year. On the other hand, if the 12 years were counted from the last intercalation (e.g. an intercalation in 9), then the first Julian leap year could be A.D. 4. In fact, the contemporary data shows that the "12 years" is an ancient error, and intercalation must have been resumed in A.D. 4, the 12th year of the reform. Finally, Macrobius does not specify whether three intercalations were omitted according to the erroneous triennial cycle or the correct quadrennial cycle. Ever since Scaliger, it has been automatically assumed that the quadrennial cycle was used. However, it will be seen that the evidence supports omission according to the triennial cycle." Two books that reffered to the problem - Michels, A.K. The Calendar of the Roman Republic (Princeton, 1967). Bickerman, E.J. Chronology of the Ancient World. (London: Thames & Hudson, 1969, rev. ed. 1980 Judge for yourself .

I have no choice but to repeat my question . Thanks Edit : Let say that Shakespeare's work writen c. 1599 is a biography (certainly it is a play with dramatization of actual events), it is the only one between Plutarchus'/Suetonius' and the 19th century ?

I say, Ursus, you have read the book, any reference in it ?

LOL, first course - How to dress elegantly (2 academic points)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090303/od_uk_..._beatles_degree I wish them goodluck

Dear Smith is back ? ...Yes !!! Why they don't make a new edition ? So many things have changed since 1860 or so . In 1860 they thought that Brutus "the first" was a real person and now we know (O.K.,I think that I know) that his image is somekind of a combination of several people from the aristocracy who stood against the Tarquins etc' . There is a chance for a new edition ?

I will bet you for 50 cents that the subject has been discussed here before, as anything else about dear Caesar . Maybe PP, Nep. or Ursus will help ? My opinion - We will never know . You can dismiss foolishness, the guy was master of politics . You can ask another question - If Caesar was simply another tyrant, why he entered the senate without bodyguards ? If you are a tyrant, why should you care about rules of any kind ? So, Caesar was not just another tyrant - he was a special tyrant !

Yes, indeed . I am going to look at some books to find some modern material about the subject (it will be better if Maty or Ursus will post about it) . 80,000 in one day ! Even the damn ****ing Nazis didn't had such killing rate .

A question - There was a massacre of Romans on one day in 88 ? 80,000 ? It would be nice to see primary sources and modern opinion . Edit : Got the primary . So, scholars opinion ?

Got you there, didn't I... me and my nonesense... It was my way to re open the debate about Caesar birth year. Now that we know (at least me) that he was assassinated in Mars 14th 44 and not the 15, here is my arguments for 102 BCE as his birth year (I must say that I prefer 100) : 1. Caesar was made flamen dialis at the age of 16 (Suetonius), who were the consuls ? Marius and Cinna, that is 86 BCE - 86 + 16 = 102 2. If he was born in 100 BCE, he would have held each of his official ranks two years before the minimum age (there were precendents for that but we are talking about every post he had) 3. In 49 Caesar isseud a coin with LII on it . If that was a reference to his age at the time, he would have been born in 102 or 101 BC. 4. Eutropius said he was 56 at the battle of Munda (March 45) 5. Mommsen said so Again, I prefer 100 .